Alternative 9/11 Theories

5. Only after you made the statement about turthers hating America, THAT IS INSULTING.

I don't believe I ever said anyone hated America. Though I'm sure some do. I do remember saying I thought it was tasteless to treat the story
as lightly as you do and to malign hundreds of people who work in civil service that must be in on the conspiracy as you claim. Particularly if the
effort is directed towards selling a product. Further, I've never seen you state unequivocally that you are not now or planning on selling a book or
video. If you are not then, I'd expect a simple denial would lay that to rest.

Originally posted by jfj123
I don't believe all those witnesses were lying, all the video's were faked, all the photos were faked, etc.. so that means since it's NOT possible
for the planes to be holograms, they must have been real.

jfj123,

You're saying the planes must have been real -- only because you don't think holograms are possible?

I say that because of what eye witnesses saw, photos, videos and wreckage on the scene.

Well, it doesn't matter if there were holograms or not.

Well it does if someone is claiming an impossibility as evidence of a conspiracy.

By the way, I don't think John Lear was the first to mention them. Sherman Skolnick mentioned them as a possibility in early
2002.

Thank you for clarifying that. Like I said, John was the first one I noticed discussing the subject.

Holograms aside, the question should be whether there were planes on 9-11 or not.

A theory needs to be found which explains these facts:

1. For the FIRST time in USA aviation history no attempt was made to reconstruct/rebuild crashed commercial aircraft.

How much of the WTC planes were left after the crashes?

2. Of course for the FIRST time in USA aviation history no NTSB or FBI or whatever institution generated crash reports either.

Did they say they did not generate crash reports or have they not released the crash reports?

3. None of the 'live interviews' in NYC on 9-11 showed plane wreckage.

I'm not familiar enough with this idea to discuss at this time but find it interesting so I'll get back to you.

5. None of the airlines issued passenger manifests -- only the newsmedia did.

Do you mean the airline companies did not release the manifests publicly? or do you mean they never created them?

I say there were no planes. You, jfj123, say there were. Which viewpoint fits the facts better, that is what we need to ask
ourselves.

Eye witnesses claim to have seen planes, videos show planes, photos show planes, plane wreckage found on scene, some of which would be too large to
move on scene in a concealed manor with all those witnesses around.

Since there is all this visual evidence, and holograms are NOT a possibility, that leaves some type of REAL plane. What would be your explanation,
leaving out the hologram idea as it is not a possibility.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I did - they are clearly getting into the building along with the rest of the plane and it's shown from several different angles to help avoid any
misconceptions.

Gee, can you read?

I asked if the nose, wings, and tail WERE SHOWN INSIDE the building not getting into the building.

Although we're only talking about a simulation:
I maintain that those elements ARE shown inside the building and it's bleedin' obvious that they are. Continued denial of that fact won't change
it or make it go away.

I will accept proof of the opposite but at least show it to be the case.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well you can "maintain" all you want, i asked for frames of the video that show the nose, wings, and tail inside the building.

Something you keep failing to do. As usual believers ask for evidence but fail to provide evidence when asked.

This is why no one is taking you seriously. The model shows the damage done by the different components and your response is "the radome wouldn't
survive intact." Well, no kidding. No one said the radome survived intact. Where do you think the radome pieces went? And in a side view they show
the damage caused by the wing to progress but do not visually show the wing (so it doesn't block the view and you can see the fuselage and other
damage) yet you immediately assume the wing is not modeled and an invisible sugar glider is causing the damage.

Originally posted by jfj123
Please post your mathematical model showing your point about the collapses. Please include all equations and variables used and why you chose said
variables to be included in your model. If what you say is true, this could be a huge breakthrough !

No maths are required, no model is required, see my post here and add your comments...

humor me ok?

That thread has been up for over a year you must have mist it?

Yes I have missed it. You gave me a link to a link. Not big on taking discussions across multiple threads as we are talking about it here.

I find it odd that you require maths and a model from me to prove what we already know about physics yet you don't require the same of the
government?

You're making a claim, I'm just asking you to back it up. You say physics says it doesn't work that way so please use physics to show me.

Where is the model that shows why the top section of WTC 2 acted the way it did? Where is the maths that explain how angular momentum can be
changed by, er nothing?

Please show me your math so I can review it to see if I should agree with you or the gov.

If you're expecting models and math formulas it would be pretty easy to do,

Excellent. Since it's so easy, please post the info. Thank you very much for your understanding.

but you would just ignore it like everything else.

The nice thing about math is that it is not biased. It's either correct or it's not.

Well if you're too lazy to click a link I'm too lazy to repeat it here....

All I'm asking for is the answer to the most important relevant points of the whole collapse scenario. I asked the question already numerous times,
why do you insist on asking me to repeat it and pretending you don't know what I'm asking? If you want more details click the link. I'm not making
any claims, and I have no theory, just some physical facts that were not covered in the NIST report and keep getting ignored by anyone who supports
it.

Why are you not asking the same questions? Do you not care that the NIST report is incomplete? Are you here to ask questions and get to the truth,
or are you just here to refute anything that contradicts the official story? Why are you guys so reluctant to discuss physics? You afraid to look at
what might make you doubt yourself?

Well if you're too lazy to click a link I'm too lazy to repeat it here....

All I'm asking for is the answer to the most important relevant points of the whole collapse scenario. I asked the question already numerous times,
why do you insist on asking me to repeat it and pretending you don't know what I'm asking? If you want more details click the link. I'm not making
any claims, and I have no theory, just some physical facts that were not covered in the NIST report and keep getting ignored by anyone who supports
it.

Why are you not asking the same questions? Do you not care that the NIST report is incomplete? Are you here to ask questions and get to the truth,
or are you just here to refute anything that contradicts the official story? Why are you guys so reluctant to discuss physics? You afraid to look at
what might make you doubt yourself?

You guys are so transparent and obvious, hey Seymour?

I am absolutely interested in discussing the physics. You said it would be very easy to post the model and math so as soon as you post it, we can
discuss it.

I think it's important that if you think the panel of experts got it wrong and you think it is easily shown false by producing your own model, that
it gets built. See up to this point I have in fact given the benefit of the doubt to those experts. I read their explanation and it sounded reasonable
to me. If you can demonstrate your model predicts vastly different results, then this could be a substantial piece of evidence to persuade me.
Please let me know what variables you used in your model, and where the relevant data you entered in the equations came from.
We're all looking for the truth and this could be a very large piece of evidence that you can provide easily. I want to compare both models and see
which best depicts the event. I'm very excited about this. How much time will you require to produce your model?

Originally posted by _Del_
This is why no one is taking you seriously. The model shows the damage done by the different components and your response is "the radome wouldn't
survive intact." Well, no kidding. No one said the radome survived intact. .

1. I have already shown plenty of reports that state the buildings survived the planes impacts. Do i need to show them again?

2. If you knew abnything about the 767 you would know most of the nose is the radome and would have been destroyed on impact.

I even have photos showing small birds put holes in the nose and wings.

3. If you look at the photos of the hole in the buidling you will see that the wings barely made it into the building and would not have been able to
casue much damage inside.

“Its normally done if the crash is considered a crime. Just like flight 800.

Unless you are trying to state that 9/11 was not a crime?”

ahhh… No. Check your facts, Flight 800 was never considered a crime, though the theory was investigated. Regardless, reconstruction is done to try
to learn what made a plane crash, not to placate people. No crime needs to be suspected or even present. It also helps when the pieces are neatly
placed in a field like the CTers believe they always should be.

I’m having a hard time keeping up with things here… the planes were holograms (even though no known technology exists for such a thing), the plane
parts that do or do not exist were planted and both towers were controlled demolitions? Even though no evidence exists to prove any conspiracy, we
are expected that all the evidence has been planted to prove otherwise?

I’m just trying to keep up. The CTers have more waffles than Waffle House…

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.